Colorado tried to kick Donald Trump off the ballot – and the Supreme Court slapped it down 9-0.
Now the state's Democrat legislature has found a sneakier way to fight the federal government.
And Jonathan Turley says what Colorado just did to its own lawyers is not only unconstitutional – it's one of the most brazen attacks on free speech he's ever seen from a state government.
Colorado Sanctuary Law Forces Lawyers to Certify Against ICE Under Penalty of Perjury
Starting March 30, every attorney who logs into Colorado's court e-filing system faces a pop-up ultimatum.
Accept or decline.
Click "accept," and you've just sworn under penalty of perjury that you will not cooperate with, assist, or share information with federal immigration enforcement – including ICE.
Click "decline," and you cannot file a motion, access a case, or represent a single client in a Colorado court.
Attorney Ian Speir – who doesn't practice immigration law, doesn't practice criminal law, and has zero cases touching immigration – logged in on April 2 and found himself staring at the pledge.
"I cannot log into the state's official e-filing system without saluting 'The Resistance,'" Speir wrote on X.
He clicked accept under protest.
Attorney Matt Barber, a former law professor, encountered the same screen and called it "indefensible."
"I have ethical obligations to my clients," Speir explained. "If I don't click 'Accept' – I will harm my clients, torpedo my practice, and probably commit malpractice."
Colorado's Democrat legislature buried the requirement inside Senate Bill 25-276, signed into law in May 2025, which expanded the state's existing anti-ICE data restrictions to cover the judicial branch.
The law forces any third party accessing the court system's nonpublic data to certify annually – under penalty of perjury – that they won't use that information to assist federal immigration enforcement.
Every lawyer in Colorado just became a conscript in the Democrat Party's war against ICE.
Jonathan Turley Says Colorado Compelled Speech Law Is Facially Unconstitutional
Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, went straight to the constitutional problem.
The First Amendment doesn't just protect the right to speak – it protects the right not to speak.
The Supreme Court locked that in with West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette in 1943, ruling the government cannot force citizens to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
Justice Robert Jackson's words from that case have never been overturned: "No official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."
Colorado is requiring every attorney in the state to do exactly that – confess by word and act that they will not cooperate with the federal government.
Turley called the law "facially unconstitutional" and said it should be struck down immediately.
A divorce attorney in Denver with zero immigration cases now has to declare loyalty to the Democrat resistance just to file a motion.
The Supreme Court rejected the same mechanism in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International in 2013, striking down a federal requirement that organizations adopt a specific policy position to receive funding.
This isn't a close call.
Colorado Keeps Losing at the Supreme Court and Keeps Spending Your Money Anyway
This is not Colorado's first unconstitutional power grab.
The state spent years targeting Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, lost at the Supreme Court, and kept targeting him anyway.
Colorado drove the 303 Creative case all the way to SCOTUS – and lost 6-3.
The state tried to strip Trump from the 2024 ballot under a novel legal theory – and lost 9-0, a ruling so lopsided even the liberal justices refused to sign on.
Two weeks ago, a Biden-appointed federal judge dismissed a DOJ lawsuit challenging Colorado's sanctuary laws, handing the Democrat resistance a temporary win.
But the e-filing certification is a different animal entirely.
Forcing citizens to swear a political oath as the price of accessing a public system has never survived the Supreme Court – and Colorado's current track record there isn't inspiring confidence.
Turley put it plainly: Colorado is on pace to build the same legacy for First Amendment rights that blue-state gun control laws built for the Second Amendment – a string of spectacular losses that actually strengthened the constitutional protections Democrats were trying to gut.
Every Colorado attorney clicking "accept under protest" is loading the next lawsuit.
Colorado just handed the First Amendment its next landmark case – and Democrat legislators don't even know it yet.
Sources:
- Jonathan Turley, "This blue state's latest attack on free speech is awful and sneaky, too," Fox News, April 8, 2026.
- Andy Wisten, "Attorneys raise concerns over certification tied to Colorado court system access," Rocky Mountain Voice, April 3, 2026.
- Hanna Panreck, "Colorado lawyers say court e-file system now makes them certify they won't assist ICE," Fox News, April 3, 2026.
- Scott McClallen, "Colorado Lawyers Reportedly Required to Pledge Non-Cooperation With Federal Immigration Enforcement," Townhall, April 2, 2026.
- Colorado Judicial Department, "SB 25-276: Colorado Courts E-Filing (CCE) Access," ColoradoJudicial.gov, March 2026.
